Your analogy is logical, but there's still a difference. Newsstand and newspapers agreed beforehand the terms of their cooperation, and while they don't pay jus

Your analogy is logical, but there's still a difference. Newsstand and newspapers agreed beforehand the terms of their cooperation, and while they don't pay just for displaying the paper, they do pay certain amount of money for each sold piece, as is was agreed. But with Google, nothing was agreed beforehand, Google just decided that it will display the part of the content and will provide link as a payoff. But now I don't want to criticize Google, nor do I want to be Murdoch's advocate. I just notice that the newspaper critics don't look at the issue from publisher's perpective, thus making their articles a bit one-sided.